Do not Light a Fire on the Sabbath

Some Christians oppose the Sabbath Commandment because they believe it is a burden
and one reason is because they say you cannot light a fire on the Sabbath and that
a man was stoned for picking up sticks on this day. I can understand why some may
think this and you have to know scripture well to understand that you can kindle a
fire on this day for the right reasons.

Here is the main verse in contention and below is what Adam Clarke's Commentary
commented in regards to this verse. Exodus 35:3 �You shall kindle no fire
throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.�

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832)
�Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire - The Jews understand this precept as
forbidding the kindling of fire only for the purpose of doing work or dressing
victuals; but to give them light and heat, they judge it lawful to light a fire on
the Sabbath day,�

The remainder of the issue relates to verses like Numbers 15:32 where a man was
stoned for gathering sticks to light a fire. Note that being cut off meant to be
put to death. With that in mind, read the rest of this passage surrounding Numbers
15:32 and note that it was only those who deliberately sinned that were stoned and
that it applied to wilfully breaking any of the Ten Commandments. Compare the Good
News Bible with the King James on verses 30-31 in regards to being �cut off� for
further confirmation that this phrase means being put to death. So we know this man
was sinning wilfully and doing something that he did not need to do.No fire on the
Sabbath

This man gathering sticks was not doing so because he was cold or needed to do so
for some other Biblical requirement and you may ask how do I know this. It is known
by lining up this incident with other scripture.

For example and there are many that could be given from both the Old and New
Testament. In Mark chapter two we find more than one issue relating to the Sabbath
and one of the main ones here is the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking the
Sabbath because He and His disciples were picking corn in the field for lunch.
Jesus replied to them that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath. (Mark 2:27) So what did Jesus mean by this? Quite simply, Jesus was just
stating that the Sabbath was made to be a blessing to mankind and not a burden.
Careful study of the New Testament reveals that the priority is always the well
being of man and even that of animals. The Sabbath is not a blessing if one has to
go hungry and it is not a blessing if we have to freeze to death or if we are sick
and cannot have a doctor come and care for us or heal us.

Can I prove this from scripture? Quite easily. Jesus said it is lawful to do well
on this day such as healing the sick or pulling an animal out of a hole it had
fallen in. (Matthew 12:10-12) And in Mark 2:25 we read, �Have you never read what
David did, when he had need, and was an hungered?� Did you notice that Jesus used
the words �When he had need?� Things of necessity are lawful to do on the Sabbath
and eating is a necessity and why it was lawful for David to do what he did. And if
you are cold or freezing in the wilderness then lighting a fire to keep warm would
not be breaking the Commandment either since that would be a necessity. Scripture
constantly shows that things that were necessary for the Lord's work or for our
well being in any way and even that of an injured animal such as one stuck in a pit
is perfectly acceptable to do on His Sabbath. God promised that in keeping this day
that we would be blessed and sitting around cold or unable to eat or cook your food
is not a blessing. God loves and cares for us and would never want us to suffer by
keeping His day holy.
Note from the following three points that this day is to be a blessing and not a
burden:

Human needs are more important than human traditions or ritual requirements.
(Matthew 12:3-4, Matthew 12:10-12)
The work performed in connection with the Temple service is in keeping with the
requirements of the Commandment. (Matthew 12:5)
Christ is greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6) or the Sabbath day. (Matthew
12:8)

So we find that lighting a fire under the right circumstances is perfectly

acceptable. See also stoned for working on the Sabbath and the Sabbath was made for
man meaning for detailed information.

Sabbath was Made for Man Meaning

It seems some have decided that since Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and
not man for the Sabbath that we do not have to obey the fourth Commandment. The
secular law that declares we cannot murder was also made for mankind. So I wonder
if these same people think they can choose to murder since this law was also made
for man. I can assure you that they will end up behind bars if they decide that
since this law was made for man that they can choose to disobey it.

The fact is the Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation when no one can deny
it had to be kept. So what has changed? Not a thing!

It is also fact that all Ten Commandments were made for man. So can we choose to
disobey the Commandment that says do not worship idols? What about adultery or
murder? Obviously not. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath daySo why on earth do some
think that the words of Jesus that says the Sabbath was made for mankind and not
mankind for the Sabbath are some magical words that end the Commandment. I believe
that would be mocking God and His law and something He would not take to kindly to.

The Pharisees had also erroneously assumed that the Sabbath was made just for them
so Jesus corrected them saying the Sabbath was made to be a blessing for ALL
mankind and not a day of legalistic rules that they had turned it into. Note that
Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man and not the Sabbath was made for the Jew.
Read also is the Sabbath only for the Jews. The Greek word for man here is
anthropos, which literally means �a person,� being a generic term that includes
men, women and children. The word �mankind� would more accurately reflect the
meaning of anthropos. The Sabbath was designed and ordained by a loving Creator for
the welfare of ALL humanity.

It is apparent that most who quote the Sabbath was made for man as an excuse to
disobey God have no idea what Jesus was saying and why. To begin with, Jesus said
that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:12) So if your sheep fell
in a hole then it would be lawful to get it out as Jesus explained. It is also
lawful for emergency workers, doctors and nurses etc to work on the Sabbath as this
is a necessity that cannot be avoided. This is also why Jesus said that those who
worked in the temple service on the Sabbath day were blameless. This was a service
that was required to every hour of the day until such time as Jesus Himself
replaced the temple service by becoming our one and final perfect sacrifice ending
the sacrificial law. (Mosaic Law)

When Jesus said the Sabbath was made for mankind, He was saying the Sabbath was
created to be a blessing to man and not a set of legalistic rules that the
Pharisees had turned it into. How many times did Jesus rebuke them for this? And
what about eating a meal on the Sabbath? Is it a blessing if we are to go hungry?
What about picking an apple of the tree for lunch on the Sabbath? The point is that
it was lawful for Jesus to be picking corn for a meal on the Sabbath. Eating is a
necessity and the Sabbath would not be a blessing to man if you had to go hungry
now would it?

So what we first find in Mark chapter 2 is the Pharisees accusing Jesus of

blasphemy for saying, �your sins be forgiven you� (Mark 2:5-7) to the man sick with
palsy. Were the Pharisees right? Of course not. Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy
as He is the Son of God.

A little later in the chapter the Pharisees once again accuse Jesus. This time they
accused Jesus for breaking the Sabbath because He and the disciples were picking
corn for sustenance. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for manWere the Pharisees
right this time? They were no more right about being able to have a meal of
necessity then they were about Jesus being guilty of blasphemy. Jesus said, �Have
you never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered?� Mark 2:25.
Note Jesus used the words �When he had need?� Things of necessity are lawful to do
on the Sabbath and eating is a necessity. See also did Jesus break the Sabbath and
become a sinner.

So the response of Jesus was the Sabbath was made for man. (Mark 2:27) That is, to
be a blessing to mankind. Man was not created for the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was
created for him and his benefit.

This chapter ends with Jesus saying, Mark 2:28 �Therefore the Son of man is Lord
also of the sabbath.� Note that Jesus did not say I AM the Sabbath, or I am LORD
Sabbath! Jesus said, �I am Lord OF the Sabbath!� Read also is Jesus the Sabbath.

So after Jesus stating the purpose of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:27) He directs attention
to its author and creator and hence His right to determine how the purpose of it
shall best be realized. Our Saviour Himself has the right to determine what is
appropriate for the Sabbath day and the Pharisees were exceeding their
prerogatives. (Mark 2:24) The Church does not have the right to load the Sabbath
with oppressive restrictions as did the Pharisees, or to attempt to transfer its
sacredness from one day to another. Both are devices of Satan to lure men away from
the true spirit of Sabbath observance. Man does not have the right to tamper with
the day of God's choosing whether he is Pharisee or a Christian. Thus the line of
reasoning Jesus was setting before the Pharisees is as follows, which is more
clearly shown by Matthews account.

(1) Human need is more important than human traditions or ritual requirements.
(Matthew 12:3-4, Matthew 12:10-12)
(2) The work performed in connection with the Temple service is in keeping with the
requirements of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:5)
(3) Christ is greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6) or the Sabbath day. (Matthew
12:8)

Hence Jesus stating that the Sabbath was made for mankind, that is, to be a
blessing to man, is not some magical sub-clause that ends the Sabbath Commandment
and I seriously question the genuineness of any such person quoting this as a means
of avoiding loving obedience to their Lord and Saviour.

Jesus said that not even a comma of the law is going to change (Matthew 5:17-19)
and Isaiah prophesied �The LORD � will MAGNIFY the law�� (Isaiah 42:21) not make
the law less strict by allowing us to pick and choose if we want to obey a
Commandment of God or not. God Commanded, �Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.� Exodus 20:8-10. See also
the Sabbath was made for man.

Is the Sabbath Only for Jews?

There is always someone raising that stale argument that the Sabbath is a sign of
holiness only for the Jews, but how can the Sabbath be only for them when there
were no Jews when the Ten Commandments were given. There were in fact no Jews in
the world for at least 2,000 years after creation so it is in fact impossible for
the Sabbath to be only for them.

The Sabbath Commandment itself also states it is for the �stranger� and hence
Gentiles also. (Exodus 20:10) In �the new earth � from one Sabbath to another,
shall ALL FLESH come to worship before me, saith the Lord.� Isaiah 66:22-23. And
not forgetting that the other Nine Commandments are not �Just for the Jews.� Does
idolatry, murder, stealing, lying, adultery or taking the Lord's name in vain apply
only to Jews? Does God have double standards and different laws for different
people? Why would He? Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3:28-29 and Isaiah 41:8 state that
those who belong to Christ are Israel today and Abraham's seed. That includes both
Jew and Gentile. In Christ we are now all the same. See also is the Sabbath only
for Israel for more detail on this very important and misunderstood point.

There is in fact a law that was only for the Jews and it was called the �Mosaic
Law� or the �Book of the Law� or to be even clearer, the �sacrificial law.� This
law was only for the Jews as the Gospel did not go to the Gentiles until 3.5 years
after the cross. The sacrificial law ended at the cross as Jesus became our one and
final perfect sacrifice. And to state the obvious, the Mosaic Laws were written in
the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments were written in The Ten Commandment law.
Jews worshipping on the SabbathThe Lord's Sabbath is the fourth Commandment. And if
His Sabbath was Jewish or to end at the cross, God would have written it in this
Jewish law. But no, God wrote it in His eternal Ten Commandment moral law that is
for everyone. See the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law for a detailed comparison
of these two laws.

There are also multitudes of Christians who call the Sabbath the �Jewish Sabbath.�
Yet nowhere in the Bible do we find such an expression. It is called �the Sabbath
of the Lord,� but it is never called �the Sabbath of the Jews.� In writing the Ten
Commandments, God called it �the Sabbath of the Lord.� (Exodus 20:10)

Despite the fact there were no Jews when the Ten Commandments were given, let's go
back even further in time anyway. The �children of Israel� whom God was angry with,
for not keeping the Seventh Day as the Sabbath in Exodus 16, were not Jews. They
were Abraham's seed just as we are. Note the following inspired text: �if ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.�
Galatians 3:29. All born again Christians are the true Israel today and have been
sanctified unto God. Thus, the Sabbath is for anyone who is Christ's regardless of
the other facts given that also reveal this old fallacy.

And even further back in time. The concept of a Saturday holy day of rest is
understood and practiced by virtually every culture from Babylon through modern
times. Our English day names are pagan in origin but in more than one hundred
nations of the world, Saturday is still called the Sabbath to this very day, just
as God named it at creation. The Babylonian language existed hundreds of years
before the Hebrews was founded by Abraham and yet the name of the seventh day means
Sabbath further revealing it is not just for the Jews. This historical evidence
confirms the Biblical teaching that God's seventh day Sabbath predates Judaism and
can be easily traced back to Babel in Genesis chapter 11. See who changed the
Sabbath to Sunday for a more detailed table with more languages.
Language 7th Day Name Language 7th Day Name
Babylonian (3800 B.C.) Sa-ba-tu Italian (Italy) Sabbato
Hebrew (Ancient and Modern) Shabbath French (France) Samedi
Greek Sabbaton German (Germany) Samstag
Latin (Italy) Sabbatum Russian (Russia) Subbota
Spanish (Spain) S�bado Polish Sobota
Portuguese (Portugal) Sabbado English (Pagan names) Saturday

And now right back to the beginning of time. Adam and Eve of course were not Jewish
either. �God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.� (Genesis 2:3) Sanctified
means �to be set apart for holy use.� Adam and Eve were the only ones in Eden to
�Sanctify� the Sabbath and this was before sin. Marriage was also instituted at the
same time as the Sabbath and yet no one says marriage is just for the Jews! Think
about it.

Anti Sabbatarians often argue that the Sabbath was not made at creation but
scripture proves this wrong also. The Hebrew word for �rested� in Genesis 2:3 is
�shabbath� and means Sabbath and further proof it existed before sin and hence was
part of God's eternal and perfect plan. And for even further evidence it existed
from creation. Exodus 31:17 says, �It is a sign between me and the children of
Israel for ever:..� And why is the Sabbath a sign forever? Because, �...in six days
the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested [shabbath], and
was refreshed.� Parentheses are added. And like Genesis 2:3 the word �rested� in
Exodus 31:17 is also �Shabbath� and hence says that God rested on the Sabbath after
creating and was refreshed.

As seen many times now, it is an absolute impossibility for the Sabbath to be only
for the Jews and thus anyone quoting this heresy is either very ignorant of
scripture or does not have a love of the truth. Read was the Sabbath made only for
the Jews for more information.
Visits: 10119 Page Last Modified: September/15/2017 0

Exodus 35:3 should be properly translated "thou shall not eradicate fire", not
"thou shall not burn/kindle fire" as Jewish tradition says. This is because verb
"to burn" in the verse is in intensive form (piel) which is translated throughout
the Torah as "eradicate"(Deut 21:9). Obviously God wants us not to eradicate fire
on Shabbat so we can be comfortable and rest, which is impossible to do if you do
not burn/kindle fire in traditional interpretation. Jews have been misinterpreting
this verse for a very long time. Perhaps since Nehemiah. There are other issues
with traditional Shabbat as well.

You're suggesting, I think, that it's better taken as the homonymous root to the
one that's normally understood. Yes? But of course ??? "to burn" (--> "to kindle")
does also occur in the piel (e.g. Lev 6:5[EVV 12], Neh 10:35[34], Eze 21[20]:4[48],
etc.). � Susan� Jan 28 '16 at 9:39
@Susan Yes. Also, Leviticus 6:5 should be qal, not piel. Its a mistake imho. I do
not mix Torah and NK because Hebrew is different. � Aleksandr Sigalov Jan 28 '16 at
9:45
I'm not quite following you on Lev 6:5. Just to settle my curiosity, could you tell
me how you translate ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ? To me there are too many nouns
to make sense of it as qal, at least in the (intransitive) sense that the qal of
this verb takes elsewhere. Unless you're diving the clauses differently, but I
can't get that to work either. � Susan� Jan 28 '16 at 10:03
@Susan "and he burns on her the priest woods". Qal means "to burn", hiphil means
"to graze down/to consume" and piel "eradicate". � Aleksandr Sigalov Jan 28 '16 at
10:09
Thanks, but now I'm confused about the extent to which you may be under-translating
(if so, deliberately, I presume, which would normally be fine, but I can't figure
out what you're doing with the syntax unless you show me in English with word
order) -- "priest woods" is the object of the verb, or part of that is subject? �
Susan� Jan 28 '16 at 10:29
1
@Susan I translated literally. Should be "and shall burn the priest on it wood".
Not sure what you are asking... � Aleksandr Sigalov Jan 28 '16 at 10:36
Using your understanding of this word, It literally says, "you shall not eradicate
IN fire." Now, if it was to say, "you shall not eradicate fire" there would be a
direct object marker (et) and no "in fire" (b'esh) at all. It would be 'lo t'ba'ar
et ha esh (you shall not purge the fire). Does that make sense? Because it says,
'in fire' it must be referring to the act of burning, not the act of putting out.
Never does this word refer to putting out a fire, and it would be confusing since
it is frequently used to describe burning. � Jacob Apr 20 at 21:05

Since we already have the Rabbi's POV in the answer above, I will answer using a
more literal hermeneutic:

BDB lists the verb as [??????] burn, consume (?????? burn; seek out, collect,
glean; this apparently earlier meaning (comparison to Arabic form)

Ex. 22:5 shows this usage: "If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be
eaten..." ??????? here means, "caused to be consumed" and it refers to an animal
devouring grass, much life a fire devours (licks up) wood.

The connection of the verb to 'collecting' must also be addressed here. Clearly,
wood must be 'collected' for a fire. Collecting sticks is the only Sabbath breaking
we see punished by death in the Scripture (Num. 15). We might read, 'you shall not
collect [wood] into the fire.' Double meanings are common in Hebrew. Therefore, the
'gleaning' of wood to be thrown in the fire, and the act of burning it, are
understood under one word. It is not then the presence of fire that is a problem,
but gathering up kindling to feed one.

This begs the question: if wood is already there next to a fire, may we feed the
fire. The logical answer is no. That would still be gathering up wood.

This solves a lot of problems. Lighting a candle or a lighter therefore shouldn't

be a problem.

What about kindling wood that has already been gathered before Sabbath? If we light
it, are we 'causing [it] to be consumed' and doing work? Few today would say that
throwing a match into some kindling to generate a fire is work, but creating a
spark using flint or another material wasn't always simple. It often involved a
great deal of work, specifically blowing the fire/smoldering wood to feed it oxygen
and make the fire grow. Therefore we can derive a lesson from this. If we have to
do anything to 'feed the flames' besides lighting it, we are breaking this
commandment.

This opens up a lot of practical and legal uses of fire on the sabbath. For
instance, even lighting a candle on the sabbath with a lighter would be ok, because
it is a candle is a self-feeding device (we are not working to feed it). Some might
object, 'you have to hold down the gas' to feed the fire of the lighter after
sparking it. However, the flame of the lighter cannot be called 'esh' (fire) but is
rather 'ner' (flame). Ditto for a candle. However, see Gen. 22:6 (flint simply
represents fire here, i.e. what causes a fire). 'Esh' in its Sabbath context,
refers to a wood fire (or some similar kindling such as leaves).

Some might also object to matches: matches are small pieces of wood you have to
pick up to light (could be viewed as gathering). However, striking a match is
essentially the the act of lighting a single stick without actively feeding it (it
feeds itself). Gathering, then, can only refer to sticks that are on the ground or
in nature. Those already in a box/book/inside can be used to light a fire, but not
to feed it (that would be work).

However, Ex. 3:2

reads, ???????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ????????? ???????
????????? ???????????? ?????????

"And Moses said, I will turn now and I will will see this great sight, how the bush
is not consumed"

This might indicate that when something is normally ba'ar-ed it is burnt up. Here,
Moses wonders why the bush isn't burnt up completely and consumed.

This might lend itself to a more strict interpretation: nothing may be burnt up by
flames. Therefore lighting a campfire would be forbidden. I believe a balanced view
would be to say that no esh (campfire/flames plural) may be kindled, but this
doesn't indlude (nerot) lamps/ single flames. Some may say, 'a lamp's flame
consumes the oil' or 'a candle consumes the wick.' But I would say, 'the lamp
candle is not licked up by flames in a blaze as wood is.' A candle is burned on its
exposed surface, and not consumed in a blaze as wood is. Therefore candles and
lamps do not fall into the same category as campfires, and nor do embers.